We have found, surprisingly enough, that these vexing questions do in fact have a scientific answer, and have developed the beginnings of a theory, which is briefly described here.
From Theorem (1), it is easy to prove that: The probability that something will happen is inversely proportional to one's desire for it to happen. The other laws of implausibility theory can be readily derived from these three theorems (e.g., ``If something can go wrong, it will'' (Murphy, 1868)). A further proof of the correctness of these theorems lies in the fact that, since they are unprovable, it is impossible to be certain of their correctness; therefore, the universe cannot shift in such a way to render them false.
(Another, even better, proof of this theorem used to exist; tragically, however, one of our rabbits ate the only copy of the proof.)
Another correlate of Theorem (1) is that the only way to prove something true is to wish for it to be false. It also explains why, the more one needs something, the harder it is to get.
One possible explanation for this is that the representation of an external fact in one's mind is in reality the creation of a small anti-universe, and thus by the law of conservation of truth, the external universe must change to make the sum total of truths equal to zero.
Here are some concrete examples of this phenomenon, which have been well documented elsewhere:
As an aside, it should be noted that several other phenomena once attributed to quantum effects have also been found to have other explanations. For example, the well-known observation that washing one's car can induce rain was actually found to be the result of tiny soap bubbles drifting into the upper atmosphere and acting as nuclei of condensation. Similarly, the observation by British researchers that carrying an umbrella usually prevents rain was found to actually be the result of trace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emanating from the plastic elements of the umbrella, drifting into the stratosphere, and not due to quantum effects as originally believed. In a classic experiment, it was shown that in the stratosphere, the intense local heating caused by the the CFCs accumulated from thousands of opened umbrellas (mediated by CFC-catalyzed disruption of the ozone layer) not only prevented atmospheric precipitation, but actually promoted nearly instantaneous reabsorption of clouds into the atmosphere, creating a sunny day.
The quantum epistemological effect of Theorem (1) has also been used by tornado researchers, who set up small trailers as "bait" in order to attract tornadoes for study, on the theory that the Universe would think the researchers did not want the trailers to be destroyed, and thus create a tornado (e.g., J. Swisher and B. Dervisham, J. Torn. Res. 7, 14332 (1999)). The ethics of this practice have been questioned by some researchers, while others have suggested that the fact that the researchers wish to observe a tornado actually serves to diminish the probability of their occurrence, even to the extent of counteracting the attractive effect of trailer parks (which are known to be a powerful tornado pheromone). In any event, although the affinity of tornadoes for trailer parks is readily demonstrated in the lab, the cycloattractant properties of trailers confounds any simple interpretation of whether quantum effects truly plays any significant role.
It also underlines the difficulties of demonstrating these quantum effects in the laboratory, since any attempt to accumulate data on this effect will cause it to disappear, only to reappear again when the researcher concludes that the effect does not exist. Thus, these phenomena can only be studied by indirect or in cogito experiments.
Interestingly, the deconstructionists seem at some level to have grasped this concept, but as usual they have completely misunderstood its profoundly Heisenbergian epistemological implications.
(Note: We have recently shown that Theorem 1 is in fact a special case of general thermoepistemological theory, and is in fact a result of a generalized curvature of science. Quantum experimenter entropy effects may also play a role here as well.)
The theory developed thus far still needs more work to make it
fit into the overall formal architecture of quantum mechanics. This is
left as an exercise for the reader.